THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Appeal No. 246 of
2007
Confirmation
Case No.07/2007
Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar
Date of hearing: : 02.03.2016
Date of announcement : 22.03.2016
Appellants : Namoos
Khan and Mudheer Khan through Mr. Abdul Razzak, advocate
Respondents : The State through Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Awan, A.P.G.
J U D
G M E N T
NAIMATULLAH
PHULPOTO, J.- Appellants Namoos Khan and
Mudheer Khan were tried by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South+West),
Judicial Court Complex, Karachi, in Session Case No.314 of 2003. After full-dressed
trial, by judgment dated 28th September, 2007, the appellants were
convicted under Section 302(a), P.P.C., and sentenced to death on three counts.
Both the accused were directed to pay compensation of Rs.100,000/-
each to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased prsons in case of default to
suffer S.I for six months. Trial Court made reference to this Court for
confirmation of death sentences as required under section 374, Cr.PC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as disclosed by
complainant Imran aged about 13 years are that he along with his brothers namely
Liaquat, Shoukat and Mohammad Idrees all sons of Mehmood Khan and his paternal
uncle Namoos Khan and his son Mudheer, who were performing watch duty in Dadhy Cloth
Market, Kharadar were sleeping on the roof of the market. On the night of
incident i.e. 24/25-05-2003, complainant along with his three above named brothers,
his paternal uncle Namoos Khan, his sons Mudheer, Sudheer, Safoor and their two
guests had slept on the roof of Dahdy Market. At about 0430 hours the
complainant suddenly woke up and saw that his paternal uncle, his sons along
with two accomplices were inflicting hatchets and churries blows to his
brothers namely Liaquat, Shoukat and Idress. He raised crises, his injured
brother Liaquat asked complainant Imran to run away else he would be murdered,
then complainant jumped from the roof to the roof of adjacent building for
hiding and due to fear of accused remained calm. Complainant has stated that
after sometime, he saw the accused while coming down and raised cries at roof
which attracted Chowikdar and other persons. Police was informed about the
incident. Police arrived there and with the help of rope complainant was
rescued. Complainant went to the roof where incident occurred and saw that his
three brothers Liaquat, Shoukat and Idrees were lying dead and two blood
stained hatchets were lying there. Complainant has stated that there was
dispute in between his father and brothers with the uncle and his sons no the
issue of contract of Chowkidari. Complainant has stated that on account of such
dispute, his uncle with the help of his sons and two unknown guests had
committed murders of his brothers. FIR of incident was recorded by ASI Riaz
Ahmed of Police Station Kharadar, Saddar Town, Karachi
on 25-05-2003 at 0815 hours against the above named accused for offence under
Section 302/34 PPC.
3. ASI Riaz Ahmed has stated that on 25-05-2003 at 0640 hours PW Ghulam
Fareed informed him about the incident and he went to the place of incident and
saw that a boy aged about 13/14 years was weeping at the roof of the adjoining
building. He got complainant Imran down through the rope and inspected place of
wardat and found two dead bodies lying on one cot and third dead body was lying
on another cot. He recorded statement of the boy Imran and sent such statement to
the Police Station for recording of FIR. Investigating Officer prepared inquest
report of the dead bodies separately in presence of the complainant Imran,
Mehmood Khan and Masood Khan. Above named Investigating Officer sent the dead
bodies to the Civil Hospital for postmortem examination and report. Thereafter,
he handed over the dead bodies to their father Mehmood Khan after postmortem
examination. It appears that further investigation was entrusted to PW
Inspector Aurangzeb Khan. Inspector Aurangzeb Khan collected blood stained
earth from the place of incident on 25-05-2003 in presence of the mashirs and
prepared such mushirnama. Investigating Officer also took pieces from quilt
from the cots. Investigation Officer had also secured two blood stained hatchets
lying in the room on the roof of the market where incident took place in
presence of the mashirs Mehmood Khan, Saeed-ur-Rehman and Tariq Khan and
prepared mashirnama and sealed the same. Investigation Officer also took
photographs on 28-05-2003. Investigation Officer left for arrest of the accused
involved in the aforesaid crime with PW Mehmood Khan, the father of the three
deceased persons. On the way, when the
police party reached at Sohrab Goth, police started checking the transport of
Bajour Agency. At 5:30 a.m., father of the complainant namely Mehmood Khan
pointed out to the Investigating officer that accused persons involved in the
case had reached there. Investigating Officer arrested both accused. They
disclosed their names as Namoos Khan and Mudheer Khan. Personal search of the
accused was conducted in presence of mashirs. Such mashirnama was produced. ASIP Amjad and PW Mehmood Khan. Accused Mudheer Khan during
investigation led the police party to market and produced clothes from tank,
which were washed. Investigating Officer secured the same in presence of the mashirs
and prepared such mashirnama. During interrogation accused Mudheer led the
police to the roof of the market and produced iron rod which was bloodstained.
Investigating Officer secured the same and prepared such mashirnama in presence
of mashirs namely Mehmood Khan and Tariq Khan. Investigating Officer sent bloodstained
clothes of the deceased, hatchets, iron rod, bloodstained pieces of clothes and
bloodstained earth to the chemical examiner. During interrogation accused
disclosed before the Investigating Officer the names of co-accused as Siddique,
Saifur, Musafir Khan and Faramosh. Investigating Officer made efforts to arrest
them but he could not succeed. On completion of the usual investigation, he
submitted challan against present accused / appellants and remaining accused
were shown as absconders. Case was sent up to the Court of Sessions and it was transferred
to learned IInd Additional Session Judge for disposal according to
law.
4. Absconding accused were declared as proclaimed offenders and proceedings
under Sections 87/88 Cr.P.C. were issued against them.
5. Charge was framed against accused Namoos Khan and Mudheer Khan
at Ex.4 under section 302/34 PPC. Both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
6. At the trial, prosecution examined PW-1 Imran at Ex-5, who produced
his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., memo of inspection of dead bodies at
Ex.5A and 5B, PW 2 Mehmood Khan at Ex.6, who produced memo of site inspection
and recovery of crime weapons at Ex-6A, memo of arrest at Ex-6B, memo of
pointation, recovery, seizure of clothes of accused and iron pipe at Ex-6C,
three inquest reports at Ex-6D to 6F, PW 3 Tariq at Ex-7, PW 4 Ghulam Fareed at
Ex-8, PW 5 Riaz Ahmed at Ex-9, PW 6 Mehtab Ahmed at Ex-10, PW 7 Dr. Imran
Sarwar at Ex-12, who produced postmortem reports of three deceased and medical
certificates regarding death of the deceased persons, PW 8 Aurangzeb Khan,
Investigation Officer at Ex-13, who produced F.I.R. at Ex-13A, photographs of
deceased at Ex-13B, chemical examiner’s report at Ex-13J. Thereafter, learned
DDPP closed the prosecution side at Ex.14.
7. Statements of accused Namoos Khan and Mudheer Khan were
recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. at Ex.15 and 16 in which they denied the
prosecution allegations and claimed their false implication in this case. The
incriminating pieces of the evidence including recoveries have been denied.
Accused have stated that prosecution witnesses have deposed against them due to
enmity. Both accused declined to give statement on oath in disproof of the
prosecution allegations and did not examine any witness in defence. Accused Namoos Khan had produced written
statement at Ex.15-A, list of some amount at Ex.15-B & 15-C and news
cutting at Ex.15-D.
8. Learned trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and assessment of the evidence, convicted the appellants under section
302(a), PPC and sentenced to death and made reference for confirmation of death
sentence as stated above. Both the appellants have challenged their conviction
and sentence recorded against them. By this single judgment, we
intend to dispose of the aforesaid
Appeal and reference made by the trial Court for confirmation of the death sentence.
9. Mr. Abdul Razzak, learned advocate for the appellants has
argued that complainant Imran aged about 13 years was sole eye witness of the
incident and brother of deceased persons. It is argued that it was night time
incident, therefore, identification was doubtful. Learned counsel for the
appellants argued that evidence of complainant Imran was unbelievable as three
brothers of the complainant were murdered and complainant could not explain
properly as to how he ran away from the place of occurrence for saving his life
from 5th floor to 4th floor. Mr. Abdul Razzak has argued
that motive as set up in the F.I.R. has not been established at trial. He has
also argued that source of identification has also not been disclosed in the
F.I.R. and there was delay in sending blood stained earth and other articles to
the chemical examiner. In support of his
contentions, Mr.Abdul Razzak relied upon the cases of in Abid Ali and 2 others
versus the State (2011 SCMR 208), Muhammad Javaid versus The State (2007 SCMR
324), Ulfat Hussain versus The State (2010 SCMR 247) and Muhammad Asghar alias
Nannah and another versus The State (2010 SCMR 1706).
10. Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Awan, learned A.P.G.
appearing for the State argued that the incident was witnessed by P.W. Imran,
brother of deceased persons. He had no motive to falsely implicate his uncle
Namoos and cousins Sudheer, Mudheer and Safoor. He has argued that presence of
the complainant at the time of occurrence was natural because his brothers were
also sleeping there who were murdered in the incident. He further argued that
at the time of incident, his brother Liaquat asked complainant to run away else
he would also be murdered then he jumped from 5th floor to 4th
of adjacent building. He argued that ocular evidence was corroborated by the
medical evidence. It is also argued that from the place of incident two
hatchets were recovered by the I.O. and one bloodstained iron rod and clothes
of the accused were also recovered on the pointation of the accused. Learned A.P.G. further argued that PW Ghulam
Fareed, chowkidar of the building while seeing complainant Imran crying on the
4th floor of the building, informed the police and through rope
complainant was pulled to 5th floor. Learned A.P.G. argued that P.W.
Mehtab has deposed that accused Namoos had purchased two hatchets from his shop.
As regards to the relationship of complainant
Imran with deceased, learned A.P.G. argued that relationship per se is no ground to discard the
testimony of P.W. Imran and his father Mahmood Khan. He has argued that there
was background of dispute between the parties over chowkidari. Lastly, argued
that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and the trial Court has appreciated each and every piece of evidence
properly and submitted that the judgment of the trial Court requires no
interference in the appeal and prayed for its dismissal. In support of his
contentions he relied upon the case of Zaitoon Bibi and others v. The State (1998 P. Cr.L.J. 1680) and Irshad Ahmed and others versus
The State and others (PLD 1996 SC 138).
11. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, we have scanned the entire evidence.
12. As regards to the unnatural death of
deceased persons are concerned, PW-5 Dr. Imran Sarwar had deposed that on
25.05.2003 SIP Riaz Ahmed brought dead bodies of Liaquat, Shoukat and Muhammad
Idrees, all sons of Mehmood Khan for conducting their postmortem examinations
and reports. Medical officer conducted postmortem examination of above named
deceased persons. Regarding deceased Liaquat, medical officer has stated that
his death occurred due to acute shock hemorrhage as result of head injuries and
injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. Medical officer stated that
deceased Shoukat died his unnatural death as a result of injuries caused by
sharp cutting weapons. Medical officer in the post mortem report has stated
that deceased Muhammad Idrees died in the result of injuries caused by sharp
cutting weapon.
13. Complainant Imran, a boy of 13/14 years
old, was sole eye witness of the
incident. On the night of incident (25.05.2003) he was sleeping on the
roof of the house along with his three brothers, namely, Liaquat, Shoukat
and Idrees. Accused Namoos, Mudheer
and Saifur, the relatives of the complainant were also sleeping there. It was 04:30 a.m., suddenly complainant woke up and saw that
accused persons were inflicting injuries with axes and iron pipe to the
brothers of the complainant. Imran has deposed that accused Namoos
instigated other accused to kill the brothers of the complainant. Accused
Mudheer and Sudheer were carrying axes at the time of incident and absconding
accused Musaifur and Faramosh were carrying iron pipes. The brothers of the
complainant asked him to run away for saving the life. Thereafter, complainant
Imran jumped on the roof of the adjacent building and succeeded to run away
from the place of occurrence. Complainant called mohallah persons, who informed
the police about the incident and threw rope. Imran went through rope to place
of occurrence and saw that his three brothers had expired. Police inspected
place of vardat in his presence and in presence of his father Mehmood Khan.
Police recorded his statement. Learned trial Court has mentioned in deposition that
complainant/child Imran was weeping at the time of cross-examination and Court provided him
time for relaxation. In the cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion
that he was not present at the time of incident. He has also denied the
suggestion for deposing falsely against the accused at the instance of the
parents.
14. PW-4 Ghulam Farid has deposed that at the
relevant time he was chowkidar at Muqeem Market, when he reached at Chai Wali
Street, he noticed 50/60 persons had gathered there and on the roof of building
boy Imran was crying. It was 05:30 a.m. He went to the police station Kharadar
and informed the police. Thereafter, police came and he along with police went
to the roof where saw the dead bodies of sons of Mehmood Khan. Imran was
standing on the roof of adjacent building. He along with police brought Imran down
through rope. He has deposed that PW Imran informed that his brothers were
murdered in his presence by his paternal uncle, his three sons and two unknown
persons.
15. ASIP Riaz Ahmed has deposed that on
25.05.2003 he was performing his duty. At 06:40 a.m. PW Ghulam Fareed appeared
at police station and stated that he was chowkidar of Muqeem Cloth Market. He
further stated that a boy, aged about 13/14 years was weeping on the roof of
adjacent building and was saying that his paternal uncle has murdered his
brothers. ASI made such entry and went to the place of occurrence at the roof
by staircase where a dead body was lying on a cot and two dead bodies were
lying on other cot and a minor boy was weeping at the roof of adjacent
building. Imran on the inquiry disclosed that he usually sleeps on the roof along
with his brothers and uncle Namoos Khan. On the night of incident, at about
04:30 a.m. he suddenly woke up and saw that his uncle Namoos and his sons
Mudheeer, Sutheer, Saifoor and two unknown accused persons were causing axes
and churry blows to the brothers of Imran. IO has further stated that Imran
disclosed that there was dispute between his father and uncle Namoos over
chowkidari of Dhadi Centre. ASI shifted dead bodies to the civil hospital for
postmortem examination and report.
16. Investigation officer Orangzeb Khan had
carried out investigation of this case and stated that on 25.05.2003 ASIP
Younus informed him regarding the incident and he proceeded to the place of
wardat and reached on the roof of Dhedi Cloth Market where three dead bodies were
lying. Investigation Officer collected blood stained earth, quilt lying on the
cots, two blood stained hatchets from the place of incident in presence of the
mashirs and prepared such mashirnama. Investigation officer went to the civil
hospital where dead bodies had already been dispatched for completing the
necessary formalities. He had also taken photographs of the dead bodies.
Investigation officer by taking PW Mahmood Khan, the father of the deceased
persons left for search of the accused, on spy information. Police party
reached at Sohrab Goth and started checking of the transport of the Bajore
Agency. IO stated that on 28.05.2003 at 05:30 a.m. two persons appeared in
Rickshaw, on which Mahmood Khan informed the Investigation Officer that those
persons were wanted in this crime. Io encircled them and caught hold of them, they
disclosed their names as Namoos Khan and Mudheer Khan. Accused were arrested, personal
search of accused was conducted, mashirnama of arrest
was prepared. Investigation Officer has stated that accused Mudheer during
interrogation prepared to produce bloodstained clothes, which were hidden by
him in the tank of the Dhadi Cloth Market. ASI took accused Mudhir to Dhadi
Cloth Market from where accused Mudheer Khan produced clothes which were
washed. Accused Mudheer also led the IO to the roof of the building and
produced bloodstained iron pipe. IO secured clothes and bloodstained iron pipe and
prepared such mashirnama in presence of mashirs Mehmood and Tariq. IO sent
bloodstained hatchets and clothes of deceased to the chemical examiner for
reports and received positive report and produced at Ex-13/J.
17. In our considered view, evidence of eye witness Imran, aged
about 13/14 years, is quite reliable and trustworthy for the reasons that the
manner and details of the incident as narrated by him appear to be natural. He has
deposed that, “on 25.05.2003 I was sleeping on the roof of my house along with my
deceased brothers Liaquat, Shoukat and Idrees. It was about 4:30 a.m. Namoos,
Mudheer, Sudheer and Saifoor are my relatives. They were sleeping there. I
suddenly woke up and saw that six persons were giving injuries with Axes and
iron pipe to my brothers and out of them accused Mudheer and Namoos are present
in the Court today. There were two persons namely Musafir and Faramoosh whose
names were disclosed to me by accused Namoos. My brothers, who had received
injuries, directed me to run away and to save life myself. Accused Namoos was
instigating to other accused to kill them. Accused Mudheer and Sudheer were
holding Axes whereas absconding accused Musafir and Faramosh were holding iron
pipes. My all three brothers had received injuries from Axes and iron pipes. I
on the direction of my brothers jumped on the roof of adjacent building and
succeeded to run away from there. Thereafter I called for mohallah persons who
informed the police. Police entered into the house after breaking the door and I
was asked to climb on the roof through rope. I saw my brothers they had expired.”
18. P.W Imran reasonably explained his presence at the spot and his
narration of occurrence inspires confidence. Appellants are closely related to
the complainant Imran as such Imran faced no difficulty to identify them. Boy
Imran has sufficiently explained that he was asked by his deceased brothers to
run away else he would be murdered then he jumped on the roof of the adjacent
building. Complainant Imran was found weeping at the roof of the adjacent
building by PW Ghulam Fareed and complainant Imran through rope was rescued.
Boy Imran and P.W Ghulam Fareed had no motive to falsely implicate the accused in
this triple murder case. Complainant Imran was matured boy at the time of
incident and his evidence is confidence inspiring. Despite lengthy
cross-examination, his evidence could not be shattered. Trial Court has
mentioned in deposition that boy Imran was weeping during his
cross-examination. It shows that picture of incident was in front of his eyes.
Moreover, his evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and the
report of the chemical examiner regarding bloodstained earth, quilt and hatchets.
Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any material
contradiction, omission or improvement. It is a settled principle of law that
minor contradictions or improvements in the statements of witnesses are to be
overlooked, however, only material contradictions are to be considered as held
in the case of ANWAR SHAMIM and another versus THE STATE (2010 SCMR 1791). The question, which needs serious consideration in this
case, is whether implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of sole eye
witness Imran to support the conviction of appellants. Ordinarily, in such like
situation the Court has to look for independent corroboration. In the instant case,
the presence of eye witness Imran is established beyond doubt. Generally a boy
of 13 years does not sleep at roof alone at night. There is cogent evidence to
satisfy us that Imran was sleeping with deceased brothers on the night of
incident. Complainant was rescued from the roof of adjacent building through rope
by chowkidar Ghulam Fareed and Police. It is difficult to believe that Imran
made false statement to let off the real culprits and to substitute innocent
persons in their place. Undoubtedly, the substitution is a rare phenomenon,
because even the interested witnesses would not normally allow the real
murderers of their brothers to escape by involving innocent persons. Evidence
of Imran (PW-1), the sole eye witness
of the occurrence, is confidence inspiring, which stand substantiated from other
circumstances and corroborated by medical evidence. Conviction even in a murder
case can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if Court is satisfied
that he is reliable. It is quality of evidence and not the quantity which
matters, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of
NIAZ-UD-DIN and another versus THE STATE and another (2011 SCMR 725). Relevant
portion is reproduced as under:-
“11. The statement of Israeel (P.W.9) the eye-witness of the occurrence
is confidence inspiring, which stand substantiated from the "circumstances
and other evidence. There is apt observations appearing in Allah Bakhsh
v. Shammi and others (PLD 1980 SC 225) that "even in a murder case
conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if the Court is
satisfied that he is reliable." The reason being that it
is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which matters.
Therefore, we are left with no doubt whatsoever that conviction of Niaz-ud-Din
was fully justified and has rightly been maintained by the High Court.”
19. Appraisal of evidence carried out by
learned trial Court did not suffer from any infirmity. Moreover,
evidence of the complainant is fully supported by chowkidar Ghulam Fareed, who
reported to the police that boy Imran was weeping on
the roof of adjacent building and police came and rescued Imran through rope.
Medical evidence corroborates the version of the complainant Imran that
deceased had died by means of the sharp cutting weapons. As regards to motive,
when there is direct evidence about the murder, motive loses its significance,
but still then motive is relevant to know the intention of culprits. In the
present case, there was dispute between deceased persons and present appellants
over the job of chowkidari as deposed by complainant Imran. As such,
prosecution has proved motive at trial. Accused Mudheer
Khan after his arrest led the police to the tank of Dhadi Cloth Market and
produced washed clothes. There is no legal force in the
contention of the learned advocate for appellants that Imran is the real brother
of the deceased persons, evidence of boy Imran could not be rejected only on
the ground that he is the brother of the deceased persons mainly for the reason
that complainant Imran had no motive to falsely implicate the accused in the
murders of his brothers. Legal position in this regard is very much clear. In
the case reported as RAQIB KHAN v. The STATE (2000
SCMR 163), Honourable Supreme Court has held as under:-
“11. The contention that a witness who is related
to the deceased is an interested witness, has since long been discarded by this
Court. It is settled proposition of law by now that interested witness is the
one who has an animus for false charge. Mere relationship of a witness to the
deceased is not enough of a reason to discard his testimony because such a
witness is necessarily not an interested witness in the true sense of the term.
This Court has gone to the extent that even evidence of interested witness is
always not discarded. Reference may be made to the law laid down by this Court
in Niaz v. State (PLD 1960 SC 387) which was reiterated again in Nazir Hussain
v. State (PLD 1965 SC 188). In Aslam and another v.
The State (1997 SCMR 1284), a Full Bench of this Court had reiterated the law
on this score that "in the final analysis, it is neither the relationship
of the witnesses with the deceased or that of the P.Ws. inter se nor in the
appropriate cases even their being the interested witnesses that provided an
ultimate guidance for according credence to their testimony. It is ultimately
inherent worth of evidence of a witness that determines his reliability."
20. After close scrutiny of the evidence, we have come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has proved its’ case against the appellants and
defence theory was after thought and it has been rightly rejected by trial
Court. Trial Court properly appreciated evidence and awarded death sentences to
the appellants in this triple murder case. No mitigating circumstance has been
pointed out by Mr. Abdul Razzak, learned counsel for the appellants for
reduction of the sentence. Death sentence in a
murder case is a normal penalty, Court should give reasons for lesser sentence
as held in the case of DADULLAH and another versus The STATE (2015 SCMR 856),
the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:-
“…………… Death sentence in a murder case is a normal penalty
and the Courts while diverting towards lesser sentence should have to give
detailed reasons. The appellants have committed the murder of two innocent
citizens and also looted the bank in a wanton, cruel and callous manner. Now a days the crime in the society has reached an alarming
situation and the mental propensity towards the commission of the crime with
impunity is increasing. Sense of fear in the mind of a criminal before
embarking upon its commission could only be inculcated when he is certain of
its punishment provided by law and it is only then that the purpose and object
of punishment could be assiduously achieved. If a Court of law at any stage
relaxes its grip, the hardened criminal would take the society on the same
page, allowing the habitual recidivist to run away scot-free or with punishment
not commensurate with the proposition of crime, bringing the administration of
criminal justice to ridicule and contempt. Courts could not sacrifice such
deterrence and retribution in the name of mercy and expediency. Sparing the
accused with death sentence is causing a grave miscarriage of justice and in
order to restore its supremacy, sentence of death should be imposed on the
culprits where the case has been proved.”
21. While considering the quantum of sentence awarded to the
appellants, we do not find any mitigating or extenuating circumstance available
on record so as to justify for awarding lesser punishment to the appellants.
The appellants had committed triple murder in cruel and callous manner. Therefore,
normal penalty of death awarded by the trial Court seems to be justifiable.
22. As regards to the sentence under
Section 302(a) PPC awarded by the trial Court to the appellants is concerned, sentence
under section 302(a), PPC is erroneous. In a case of Qatl-i-amd liable to death
by Qisas, the requirement is that the witness must stand the test of
Tazkiya-tush-Shahood test as held in the case of MANZOOR and others Vs. THE
STATE and others (1992 SCMR 2037). In the present case, Tazkiya-tush-Shahood test
of eye witness was not done, the sentence under Section 302(a) PPC Qisas is not
sustainable in law and it is converted to 302(b) PPC death as Ta’zir on three
counts. Consequently, we do not find any justification to interfere with the
conviction recorded by trial Court.
23. As a sequel to the discussion made above, appeal is dismissed
and Reference for confirmation of death sentences is answered in affirmative.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Gulsher/PS